001. The Lund Report's Christen McCurdy reports in "Naturopath Questions Presence of Cell Tower Near NCNM" (2013-12-11)[my comments are in unquoted bold]:
001.a1. some article excerpts:
"Portland naturopath Ariel Policano has written and self-published a book about electromagnetic frequency radiation – what she and others sometimes call 'dirty electricity' – warning of the dangers of cell phones, cell towers, microwaves and other forms of dirty electricity, which she says can cause neurochemical imbalances and is linked to cancers [...]";
wow, strikes me as very Luddite. I'm instantly reminded of similar 'fake fears' from Canada: Skeptic North recently posted "C4ST and Frank Clegg Spreading WiFi Fear" and speaks of the fear-mongers invoking "the BioInitiative Report [which is actually] a heavily biased and unscientific review of cherry-picked literature designed more to instill fear than inform." And guess who also invokes that report! Read on.
"[the ND] purchased a German instrument called an acoustometer and started doing readings of the levels of EMF radiation [...and] has posted a video to YouTube of her carrying the acoustometer through [...NCNM's] parking lot and into the building [...] the school doesn't own the tower or the residual equipment, only the land it resides on [...] where she got a reading of 50,000 microwatts per meter squared [...] in the video she urges viewers to 'take back their power' for healthier communities [...]";
indeed she has a video. See below. It turns out that Amazon.com also sells these devices, or something like them, sort of a metal detector for radio waves. But, you would think, worldwide, that this 'dirty imbalancing cancer causing unhealthy stuff' would have been noticed by now! Why has it stayed so FRINGE? Like bigfoot adventurers and water dowsers?
001.a2. the Youtube video "NCNM: A Case of Microwave Radiation Exposure" [vsc 2013-12-11] states:
"[in its description] learn more from my Kindle book about the dangers of microwave radiation and dirty electricity [...] this is my first edit of footage I took around the NCNM campus [...and she mentions that very dubious] BioInititave Report [...calling it] one of the trusted references on radiation from cell phones, cell phone towers, wireless routers and more [...] if you are a current NCNM student experiencing symptoms including headache, vertigo, dizziness, inability to focus, disrupted sleep without other explanation please contact me [...]";
nothing like sharing your personal health information with, apparently, a misinformed alarmist! But, she IS a doctor! Here's a link to the Kindle book "EMF Protection: How to Stop Harmful EMFs, EMRs (including Cell Phone Radiation), & Dirty Electricity - the Invisible Threat to Your Family", and WHY WOULD a naturopath indicate on the cover of a book the KIND of doctor they are? Yet, what do people assume, I wonder?
"[the video, cites BioInititave Report 'safe' numbers and speaks of] these dangerous microwave radiation generators [...and] these destructive structures [...and] taking our own power back [...she says] I can palpably feel how disruptive this frequency is [...] these are such toxic levels of microwave radiation that I'm concerned for myself even being here for a few seconds. So no one should have to work in this environment [...] the harmful microwave radiation [...] its called dirty electricity [...which is] very very disruptive to human health [...suppressing] serotonin and dopamine [...and increases] cancers [...] in addition to the dirty electricity and the microwave radiation, we're actually dealing with some very high and potentially dangerous magnetic fields in the school."
this 'extra-sense' reminds me of the 'touch experiment' of Emily Rosa, and how, once blinded, a person CAN'T sense what they claim to sense when unblinded. It would be a hoot so see this tested.
001.a3. back to the article:
"'these readings are absolutely off the chart and incredible in a school,' Policano said [...] 'I am deeply concerned about these students. They are receiving levels of radiation that are frightening,' she told The Lund Report [...] 'they can't grasp, it's odorless, it's colorless, it's not on the 11 o'clock news, people don't hear about it'";
alarm, alarm! It's spooky! False alarm...
"officials from the school [...] say the science regarding the health effects is still mixed [...ND] Mary K. Geyer [...] dean of the School of Naturopathic Medicine, said [...] the National Toxicology Program, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have all classified cell towers as not having carcinogenic potential at this time [...] 'as naturopaths [...] we tend to be [...] very thoughtful about paying attention to things like this [...] these waves are non-ionizing radiation, which means they can't directly damage DNA [...and mentions] articles I've seen, and books I've seen [...] we also know that RF waves have long wavelengths, which makes it highly unlikely that they can concentrate enough to disturb individual cells'."
so, that's what really caught my attention, knowing how naturopathy completely hi-jacks science in placing its nonscience within science. So, we have this appeal to 'the preponderant science consensus' and yet such is IGNORED in terms of naturopathy's broad contents and labeled science.
002. and ye old NCNM naturopathy explanation, where there's that complete erosion of 'the science thing' by way of "About Naturopathic Medicine", which states:
"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing[ ...that] are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis. These principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force."
but, of course, a "life force" does not survive scientific scrutiny and is in fact science-ejected. Which always brings up this question: can you be a profession if you are based on falsehood? How do you engage in a relationship of fiduciary duty when you can't be trusted to actually KNOW what you say you know HOW you say you know it? So, science for naturopathy is a matter of convenience: falsely use it when needed, truly use it when needed.
Note: for an overview of just how weak the Bio-Initiative Report is, see Kenneth R. Foster & Lorne Trottier's "Picking Cherries in Science: The Bio-Initiative Report". But naturopathy's broad 'essentially naturopathic' premises are EVEN WEAKER.